RIM to sell one of its two corporate jets in an effort to cut costs
Citing unnamed inside sources, Bloomberg has reported that as part of its goal of saving $1 billion in annual costs, RIM has decided to sell its cute 9-passenger jet for about $6 or $7 million. Thankfully, this doesn't mean that CEO Thorsten Heins will be taking the bus anytime soon, as RIM is still the owner of another, 14-passenger jet.
You really shouldn't feel too bad for RIM, after all, that's probably just another great piece of news for the company. Anyone interested in a 9-passenger plane?
1. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6220; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
No corporate companies shouldn't have jets. they can go on commercial planes or take trains to go where they need to do business. another reason why companies loose some money
7. tluv00 (Posts: 134; Member since: 18 Oct 2007)
So "corporate companies" should have jets? Because that is what you just said.
It's called a free market. If a company wants to purchase a corporate jet they can. That company can also fail and be forced to sell said jet to cut costs as well. I get what you are saying but commercial travel is not always feasible.
19. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6220; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
you probably couldn't read my comment. I SAID (SHOULDN'T) HAVE JETS
23. Sparhawk (Posts: 75; Member since: 10 Mar 2012)
First of all, "corporate companies", really? Was that written by the Department of Redundancy Department?
And you said "No corporate companies shouldn't have jets" -- a double negative meaning that companies should have jets.
Unless you meant "No, corporate companies shouldn't have jets." Notice the comma after "no", which makes a BIG difference and flips your meaning to the opposite. Adding the comma makes it say "companies shouldn't have jets", like you claim to have meant.
"Go Go Gadget Grammar-Checker!"
13. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5593; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
You know life is bad when a company has to sell its jet(s). Look at GM and Chrysler when the execs went to Congress to beg for a bailout. They flew in on their corporate jets.
I wonder how long before RIM files for BK?
20. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6220; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
well at lease they won't get a bail out from us. GM still haven't paid US BACK
18. Gawain (Posts: 342; Member since: 15 Apr 2010)
I gather you view the role of chief executives as "cushy". It is anything but that. Private jets enable corporate teams to reach multiple locations in a given day. Productivity becomes a net-gain. When you have multiple executives that have a dollar cost of thousands of dollars per hour, no Board of Directors in their right mind is going to think it's acceptable for them to burn two hours at each end of a travel leg waiting on ticket counters, TSA, baggage, and the like. General Aviation enables flexibility to a degree not possible through commercial aviation.
3. fanboy1974 (Posts: 1146; Member since: 12 Nov 2011)
Next their going to tell the employee's to work in the dark to save on electricity.
14. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5593; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Working from home enables the office building to be smaller (no need to house all of the employees working from home), which saves $ in rent, utilities, parking, gas, and, and, and.
24. Sparhawk (Posts: 75; Member since: 10 Mar 2012)
But you have to figure the added cost of telecommuting: Internet expenses, possibly sending I.T. people to employees' homes if their computers are acting up, added expenses for phone conversations that would have occurred in person @ the office, etc. It isn't all cost savings. There are other expenses also.
4. jmoita2 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)
Oh, no!!! Poor RIM executives!!! They will actually have to mingle with us, the unwashed masses on their travels!!! The horror!!! lol
6. nak1017 (Posts: 328; Member since: 08 Jan 2010)
It's part of an on-going effort to allow drunken executives to mingle
17. axllebeer (Posts: 265; Member since: 05 Apr 2011)
Wonder if they will have to use the BlackBerry Traffic app? :p
5. kabukijoe (Posts: 67; Member since: 06 Mar 2010)
Seriously, the biggest reason a larger company like this would fail is greed and extremely poor management of money... This is a perfect example, this company is losing money but they insist on having their own jet, how will they ever get around without their own jet?!?!? And their executives are probably still making millions per year despite their failure.
Maybe some of this money that they have been pi$$ing away should have been put into making a relevant product, then perhaps they wouldn't be in the situation they are in right now.
9. axllebeer (Posts: 265; Member since: 05 Apr 2011)
Sorry but you are wrong. They had 2 Jets lol. So that's double the $ pissing. And yeah even though I'm a RIM fan, who the hell needs 2 Jets?!
12. kabukijoe (Posts: 67; Member since: 06 Mar 2010)
They are getting rid of one and keeping the larger 14 passenger one though haha. How would they ever be able to travel if they got rid of both?!? lol
16. axllebeer (Posts: 265; Member since: 05 Apr 2011)
Ya know that sad part is for $6-$7 million, couldn't someone forgo the jet and just buy RIM?!
10. PapaSmurf (Posts: 7683; Member since: 14 May 2012)
RIM is dying a little each day. It's actually quite sad to see a company that was once ruler of the mobile world struggling to survive...
11. Sparhawk (Posts: 75; Member since: 10 Mar 2012)
I'll strike a deal for that plane. How about $200 with a 2-year contract? And, of course, I would expect unlimited data (gas) for $30 per month. Sound like a deal?
22. Chasers (Posts: 21; Member since: 27 Nov 2011)
You cant really say corporate companies shouldnt have company jets. I dont know about you, but i wouldn't be CEO for a company that didnt provide me with my own jet.